Most people, when they click on Facebook, are expecting to see what their friends are up to.

Not necessarily. Or at least, maybe when it started out. But nowadays people use it for many different purposes.

Perhaps. Your post doesn't really seem relevant to the point I was making though.

How about this - the average facebook user is NOT using facebook to be made aware of world issues and look at confronting photojournalism. And those that are probably part of a facebook group dedicated to world issues and confronting photojournalism.

How is it not relevant? You said most people use it to keep up with their friends not social issues; I argued that some people may use it for other purposes than keeping up with their friends - such as said social issues. Apologies if I wasn't being clear enough.

Most people, when they click on Facebook, are expecting to see what their friends are up to.

Not necessarily. Or at least, maybe when it started out. But nowadays people use it for many different purposes.

Perhaps. Your post doesn't really seem relevant to the point I was making though.

How about this - the average facebook user is NOT using facebook to be made aware of world issues and look at confronting photojournalism. And those that are probably part of a facebook group dedicated to world issues and confronting photojournalism.

This. For me, FB is a place for chit-chat and light entertainment. If I go to read the news, I do it knowing it's going to be full of war and car wrecks. I use FB for fun mostly, so being smacked in the face with gory images in FB is more like I'm hanging out with my friends and one of them says "Hey, let's look at my vacation pictures!" and it turns out all they did on vacation was take pictures of dead people and animals. I have had to unlike several pages and posters, or hide them from my feed, because I was tired of being brought to tears over my morning coffee. I can read upsetting stuff, but I'd rather pick the timing and go in prepared.

Most people, when they click on Facebook, are expecting to see what their friends are up to.

Not necessarily. Or at least, maybe when it started out. But nowadays people use it for many different purposes.

Perhaps. Your post doesn't really seem relevant to the point I was making though.

How about this - the average facebook user is NOT using facebook to be made aware of world issues and look at confronting photojournalism. And those that are probably part of a facebook group dedicated to world issues and confronting photojournalism.

This. For me, FB is a place for chit-chat and light entertainment. If I go to read the news, I do it knowing it's going to be full of war and car wrecks. I use FB for fun mostly, so being smacked in the face with gory images in FB is more like I'm hanging out with my friends and one of them says "Hey, let's look at my vacation pictures!" and it turns out all they did on vacation was take pictures of dead people and animals. I have had to unlike several pages and posters, or hide them from my feed, because I was tired of being brought to tears over my morning coffee. I can read upsetting stuff, but I'd rather pick the timing and go in prepared.

What side am I on any way? I agree - I would hate to see gory pictures on my feed too. If it happened too frequently I would defriend the individual instead of putting the burden on them to do so.

I actually DO find medical stuff fascinating and would probably not be terribly grossed out by maggots being used to clean dead skin off a person's large flesh wound. That IS interesting to me...and gross...but interesting nonetheless.

1. Is it appropriate for me to write something on my status to tell friends to remove me if they like posting/re-posting graphically gory pictures? 2. Should I stay silent and just unfriend/ban those who post gory pictures?

While it's been pretty much agreed that option 1. would be rude, does that really just leave option 2? Would it be rude to send a private message to the worst offenders and, politely, ask if they would mind excluding you from certain of their posts? It would be relatively easy for them to skip posting to the OP's newsfeed as Facebook has custom options when you post anything, so that you can include or exclude certain people. Or you can opt to set up groups of people and then only share posts with those people.

I can see how some people would see this as rude, but in some ways it's like having a face to face conversation: if someone raises a topic that upsets you, you can either bean-dip them or ask them to change the subject, because this subject is upsetting you. Different people have different tolerances, so how do they know it upsets you, if you don't tell them?

While it's been pretty much agreed that option 1. would be rude, does that really just leave option 2? Would it be rude to send a private message to the worst offenders and, politely, ask if they would mind excluding you from certain of their posts? It would be relatively easy for them to skip posting to the OP's newsfeed as Facebook has custom options when you post anything, so that you can include or exclude certain people. Or you can opt to set up groups of people and then only share posts with those people.

I can see how some people would see this as rude, but in some ways it's like having a face to face conversation: if someone raises a topic that upsets you, you can either bean-dip them or ask them to change the subject, because this subject is upsetting you. Different people have different tolerances, so how do they know it upsets you, if you don't tell them?

They don't. However, how many times do they need to be reminded before we need to regard them as total boors?

Do any of you remember that youtube video that went viral, with the young girl throwing baby puppies into a river? EVERYONE was sharing this link, EVERYONE was talking about it. I had the choice of clicking on it or not -- I admit I eventually did see 10 seconds of it and I didnt sleep for days, completely and utterly distressed by what I had seen.

I kind of lost track of who said what, but I have to agree that these photos (at least the particular ones I have seen) have nothing to do with keeping informed, wanting to make a difference, or are anything like what Time Magazine publishes about war, starvation, poverty or cities ravaged by natural disasters. I keep up on those issues and if I was seeing photos with sensible content -- articles that could educate me... But, no.

I have heard A LOT of people make complaints about this particular trend of posting inhuman photos on Facebook. I know a lot of people find it utterly pointless and feel like the people posting them are doing so for the wrong reasons. Who knows?

While it's been pretty much agreed that option 1. would be rude, does that really just leave option 2? Would it be rude to send a private message to the worst offenders and, politely, ask if they would mind excluding you from certain of their posts? It would be relatively easy for them to skip posting to the OP's newsfeed as Facebook has custom options when you post anything, so that you can include or exclude certain people. Or you can opt to set up groups of people and then only share posts with those people.

I can see how some people would see this as rude, but in some ways it's like having a face to face conversation: if someone raises a topic that upsets you, you can either bean-dip them or ask them to change the subject, because this subject is upsetting you. Different people have different tolerances, so how do they know it upsets you, if you don't tell them?

They don't. However, how many times do they need to be reminded before we need to regard them as total boors?

That's a very good question and I honestly don't know. I do feel that asking them at least once is preferable to de-friending them without giving them the chance to stop posting the stuff on your newsfeed. Maybe if gory stuff is all they ever post then de-friending immediately is the best option but if the gory stuff is mixed with other posts that you do want to read, then it might just be worth asking nicely.

While it's been pretty much agreed that option 1. would be rude, does that really just leave option 2? Would it be rude to send a private message to the worst offenders and, politely, ask if they would mind excluding you from certain of their posts? It would be relatively easy for them to skip posting to the OP's newsfeed as Facebook has custom options when you post anything, so that you can include or exclude certain people. Or you can opt to set up groups of people and then only share posts with those people.

I can see how some people would see this as rude, but in some ways it's like having a face to face conversation: if someone raises a topic that upsets you, you can either bean-dip them or ask them to change the subject, because this subject is upsetting you. Different people have different tolerances, so how do they know it upsets you, if you don't tell them?

They don't. However, how many times do they need to be reminded before we need to regard them as total boors?

In that case just defriend them rather than tell them what they can and can't post on their own wall.

While it's been pretty much agreed that option 1. would be rude, does that really just leave option 2? Would it be rude to send a private message to the worst offenders and, politely, ask if they would mind excluding you from certain of their posts? It would be relatively easy for them to skip posting to the OP's newsfeed as Facebook has custom options when you post anything, so that you can include or exclude certain people. Or you can opt to set up groups of people and then only share posts with those people.

I can see how some people would see this as rude, but in some ways it's like having a face to face conversation: if someone raises a topic that upsets you, you can either bean-dip them or ask them to change the subject, because this subject is upsetting you. Different people have different tolerances, so how do they know it upsets you, if you don't tell them?

They don't. However, how many times do they need to be reminded before we need to regard them as total boors?

In that case just defriend them rather than tell them what they can and can't post on their own wall.

True, but it's sort of like divorcing your spouse because s/he keeps whistling through his/her teeth, rather than speaking up and saying, "You know, that really bothers me, and I would consider it a favour if you stopped doing that."

Logged

My cousin's memoir of love and loneliness while raising a child with multiple disabilities will be out on Amazon soon! Know the Night, by Maria Mutch, has been called "full of hope, light, and companionship for surviving the small hours of the night."

True, but it's sort of like divorcing your spouse because s/he keeps whistling through his/her teeth, rather than speaking up and saying, "You know, that really bothers me, and I would consider it a favour if you stopped doing that."

I disagree. What they post on facebook is not just their relationship between the two of you. If they were sending that stuff to you in e-amil then I can see giving them a heads up but this is a bit different.

True, but it's sort of like divorcing your spouse because s/he keeps whistling through his/her teeth, rather than speaking up and saying, "You know, that really bothers me, and I would consider it a favour if you stopped doing that."

It's a bit extreme to say they're the same thing. When one marries, you enter into a partnership both legal and (in many cases) spiritual and you commit to each other. When I accept a friendship in Facebook, I don't commit to the person in any way. The Facebook friendship is not a re1ationship I feel is even close to the same level.

I have one friend who has a cat phobia. Cats freak her the heck out. I didn't find out until she declined multiple invitations to my house; she knows from my photos on Facebook that I have a cat. (Most of my pictures are of my cat. What can I say, she's adorable.) She felt bad because she thought that I might be taking her refusals the wrong way, so she let me know. My bet is that she has my photos unsubscribed, if she doesn't have me hidden altogether. I'm not offended.

She could have asked me to stop posting cat pictures. She could have asked me to exclude her from the list of people who see my cat photos. Neither is reasonable for me to do. I post almost all my picture from my phone and they just go automatically to my photos. I could block her from my photo albums, but she can do it herself just as easily if she wants to. I expect her to manage her phobia herself. As far as I know, she expects to as well.

I find it interesting that there are people who assume that if they are bothered by certain images, then they must be in the majority or part of "most people". Unless there are statistics out there to back it up (and I doubt I'd consider a poll of this post to be "evidence") I don't buy it.

If you think your FB friend is a bad person, unfriend them. If you just don't like the pictures they post, unsubscribe to their pictures. As someone said on another post, we cannot control how others behave, we can only control how we react to their behavior. Facebook provides you with many tools that enable you to see or not see various things. Feel free to use them.